|
|
The enemy withinThis post is really a follow up from a post by my friend and colleague Geoff Beck, from the issues raised by an example I gave in comments and Fred Scrooby’s response to it. The germ of the idea has of course existed for a while in my mind and I have finally got around to expressing the idea more fully. We, here at MR, spend considerable time debating and discussing the ills of our age – PC, Multiculturalism, western guilt, open borders, anti-white legislation, indoctrination of children at School and so on. The situation is, needless to say, quite bad. It is my contention though, that the situation is not “equally bad” across the western world. It is at its worst in the English speaking portion of the Western world. My view is perhaps biased because I happen to live in the English speaking portion and happen to witness these things from close range. I am also acutely aware of the nature of the Liberal tyranny in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. But as I see it, there is a struggle on in those nations and the Liberal tyrants must try very hard to keep a lid on things. By contrast, in the United States and Canada, the struggle appears to be over. There are some brave souls putting up a fight, but as Geoff rightly points out, the situation is now too desperate to hold much hope for even the most stubborn optimists. Britain has an advantage over the US, Canada and Australia in that it is not a “nation of immigrants” and therefore those pernicious doctrines have less force here. But even so, the 1990s witnessed the ingress of more than a million immigrants and that number has now risen to 200,000 a year or more. I believe this demonstrates that there is something to the argument. The diseases associated with Liberalism appear to express themselves at their worst within the English speaking world. America’s borders have been abolished, Canada is letting in a phenomenal number of non-white immigrants, Australia admits a higher percentage of immigrants (relative to its population) than even the United States, Britain’s asylum problem is already acknowledged as out of control. In all these nations, Multiculturalism rules as the dominant “respectable” doctrine. In the continent, Front National gets 15-18 percent of the vote in France, the Germans have Stoiber, the Austrians still have the threat of Haider, the Swiss have Blocher, the Danes have the Danish people’s party and the Italians have a range of parties on the right that speak openly on the issue. The most notable thing is a complete absence of such parties in the English speaking nations. A party like the Danish People’s Party or the Vlaams Belang would not get very far in Britain, let alone the US, Canada or Australia (although the Australians did have a brief flirt with Pauline Hanson). But I think, as a general rule, it is my firm belief that political correctness is much more firmly entrenched in the English speaking nations. There are many theories to be proffered as an explanation for this. One likely to be encountered fairly soon is Jewish political activism. While there is truth to this, especially in respect of the United States, it does not explain why English liberals were marching for the abolition of apartheid in South Africa as early as the 1950s or why the English speaking white South Africans were the vanguard of the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa even though the consequences of the abolition of apartheid were there for everyone to see. And as demonstrated by the anecdotal example given by me, the delusion and the hypocrisy appear to be at their worst in South Africa’s English-speaking white population. It is my opinion that the longer a people have lived with the principles of Liberalism, the more likely they are to be in the mess the west finds itself in. The problem is that Liberalism is in conflict with the Nation and the survival of peoples. It has been the key to modern science, to material progress and has formed the basis of the prosperity that the western world has achieved. But the conflict does exist and cannot be wished away. There appear to be two ways of dealing with this conflict: the first is what I shall call the “Japanese way”, the second is what I shall call the “American” way. The Japanese way acknowledges that Liberalism with its attendant emphasis on science, peace and commerce is essential to prosperity. But there is also an acknowledgement that stretched beyond reasonable limits it results in the abolition of the Nation itself. The “Japanese way” is to take Liberalism as far as it goes without threatening the survival of the Nation. Once that happens, Liberalism must be contained by powerful Nationalistic forces. If there is any reason why Japan is not in the mess France or Britain is in, this is it. The American way of dealing with the conflict is to be consistent in sticking with the principles of Liberalism (to the point of fanaticism) no matter what the consequences. Therefore, in a conflict between being prudent to ensure the survival of the nation and support for Liberal principles (with their essential and unavoidable “love the world” humanitarianism and hence less emphasis on border control), Liberalism wins. In a conflict between National identity (the fact of America’s founding and subsequent rise as a European creation) and humanitarian fanaticism (open borders, egalitarianism, multiculturalism), the latter wins. In Britain, the same applies now to the pernicious conception that Britain is a “mongrel nation” anyway. The Germans don’t talk this way, even now. Not just anyone can turn up at the door and get a German passport. You can here. And that is the fundamental difference. If the battle is lost, it will be lost here first – in Britain, in the US, Canada and Australia. It is here that those principles have finally borne their poisonous fruits. It is here that those principles now ride unchallenged. The ties of blood are now unmentionables. I have often said (and have been castigated many times for saying this) that the countries closest to the United States culturally are the most vulnerable. It is no surprise that every idiotic left-liberal idea gets transported from the United States to Britain first. It is no surprise that Britain now has a prime minister who loves open borders as much as Bush. There is a close connection here. I do not imply by this that these problems are absent in the Continent. But there is a countervailing force still in existence in the Continent. The blood and soil argument has its legitimate place and it is put forward with some force in contemporary politics. The question we are left with is: what is the alternative to Liberalism? Let me state here that it is my considered opinion that Liberalism will die out before the end of this century in Europe. If Europe is to survive in anything close to the historic sense of the peoples and nations that have considered themselves European, liberalism must die out. In its current formulation and the fanaticisms that it engenders, Europeans will find themselves soon outnumbered by aliens who have nothing in common with them. If Liberalism is not challenged by Europe’s native populations, it will give way to an Islamic majority. The moment Moslems become the majority in any European nation, you can rest assure Liberalism will be dead. What will replace it will not have any connection with Liberal “doctrines”. Just ask Theo Van Gogh. Posted by Phil Peterson on Sunday, February 20, 2005 at 08:46 AM in Political Philosophy Comments:2
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 11:36 AM | # I have often said (and have been castigated many times for saying this) that the countries closest to the United States culturally are the most vulnerable. It is no surprise that every idiotic left-liberal idea gets transported from the United States to Britain first. Shifting the interpretation to economics… It’s been 10 years since I checked the numbers but the biggest holders of American capital, by far, were the Britain and the Netherlands. At that time Japan was next, China was invisible. Today I’d guess Britain would be near the top, but displaced by China. Hell, they own our currency! China won’t shed a tear when the US sinks, and we’ll drag the U.K. with it - “2 imperialists for the price of 1”! Again, not that they will eclipse the achievements of Anglo Civilization - that’s not the point. Its just oriental despotism. A most thoughtful essay. I’m sure it will be given great consideration. 3
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 11:44 AM | # “My impression, from my place in the United States, is that Americans consider continental Europe to be more “far gone” than the US.” Misinformation seems to be more rampant in the United States. Nothing demonstrates this better than Iraq. Also, 40 percent of Americans still think Saddam had a hand in 9-11. That is misinformation writ large. I think one additional factor is that most Europen nations are very densely populated. There is nowhere to run. In the US, huge swaths of the country still have few immigrants. Even though the US’s problem is far worse, people do not experience it the same way as we do in Europe. 4
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 11:54 AM | # MD, Phil: > In the US, huge swaths of the country In a recent post, When death comes nigh our dwelling, it was shown that the hinterlands of Nebreska are being populated by Mexicans. Corporations build collossal meat processing plants and then advertize the positions in Mexico. They’ve taken over entire towns. This is true not only in Nebreska, but also in my state of Kansas. America is becoming a balkanized society. Many Americans are not alarmed because the hordes - 20 million Mexicans perhaps - are hidden. They come out mow lawns and then disappear. Of course ~20% are in prison. The rest abuse the school system, get drunk, rape, and all that. 5
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 11:59 AM | # Geoff, True. But even so, see here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/geo_pop_den&int=-1 Britain has 244 people per square kilometer, the US 29. The difference is still enormous. 6
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 12:56 PM | # To GW: I apologize for my part in bring this gloom to MR. (But think how my wife must feel). Perhaps I’ve infected Phil? Perhaps he caught the virus somewhere else? You attempted to bring me to my senses in the post Who Burns First: England or U.S?. Yet, the solutions for reversing decline are rather simple. But to enact those solutions is, by their very nature, a counter-revolutionary act. To exclude the foreigner is an act in violation of inclusion and universalism. To apply stigma or prejudice is a violation of the tenants of the faith which we ALL must believe, or be excommunicated to a diversity workshop or face a job dismissal. I’m comfortable with my role as a counter-revolutionary. I think it is a most conservative role. 7
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 01:18 PM | # Phil Peterson - “Australia admits a higher percentage of immigrants (relative to its population) than even the United States” Ah, but there was an article in the The Times (London) a couple of months back saying that in the last or so the majority have come from Britain and continental Europe. The article said this is due to a new Australian emphasis on attracting skilled immigrants. Phil Peterson - “There are many theories to be proffered as an explanation for this. One likely to be encountered fairly soon is Jewish political activism. While there is truth to this, especially in respect of the United States, it does not explain why English liberals were marching for the abolition of apartheid in South Africa as early as the 1950s or why the English speaking white South Africans were the vanguard of the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa even though the consequences of the abolition of apartheid were there for everyone to see. And as demonstrated by the anecdotal example given by me, the delusion and the hypocrisy appear to be at their worst in South Africa’s English-speaking white population.” OK, I asked you in that other thread if your friend was a Uitlander (English-speaking white) or an Afrikaner and then I went on to point out that SA’s Anglos were more liberal. However, I could also have pointed out that Jewish Anglos were especially prominent in the anti-Apartheid movement in SA. Most of them were Litvaks (Lithuanian Jews). See link. http://www.queensu.ca/samp/news/artic1.htm Susan Sontag was also a Litvak. 8
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 01:45 PM | # Matra, I have read a bit about Jews in South Africa leading the anti-Apartheid movement. Perhaps Wintermute could add more detail here than I can. The point which stands though is that the “progressive” Jews had less effect on the Afrikaners than they did on the English-speaking South Africans. You agree? 9
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 01:47 PM | # “Ah, but there was an article in the The Times (London) a couple of months back saying that in the last or so the majority have come from Britain and continental Europe.” I think many people in Europe who are getting sick of the blighted cities and the ethnic tensions are running away to Australia. I read a news story about the Dutch leaving the country in droves for Australia. A direct fall out of the increasingly menacing Moslem presence in Holland. 10
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 01:48 PM | # I’m not sure what to think of your theory. Here in Canada Francophone Quebeckers are the most left wing native Canadian group yet they also have a stronger sense of ethnic identity than all the Anglos, including the relatively isolated and tight-knit Newfoundlanders. But French Canadians were also conquered and have been a minority in the country, much like white US Southerners, another group with a stronger identity than the rest of their countrymen. Even the Quebec licence plates say “Je Me Souviens” - I remember - supposedly a reference to New France and the Conquest. Most of the English-speaking world has no historical memory of defeat, never mind foreign conquest and occupation. The confidence of being winners and having suffered few humiliations in modern history might contribute to the apparent lack of ethnic consciousness in the Anglosphere. White Southerners, a people who lost a fairly recent war and suffered under an occupation and N Irish Protestants, a people in danger of being conquered, seem to be the only Anglos with a fairly strong sense of collective identity - though the latter group has nowhere near the sense of solidarity it had just two decades ago. I’m not sure whether I could include the Scots and Welsh, as their ethnic consciousness seem to only be present when confronting the English. But I have no first-hand experience of Scotland and Wales so I could be wrong. Then again, maybe the apparent lack of ethnic consciousness in the Anglosphere and our general lack of interest in economic collectivism are connected. 11
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 01:50 PM | # “Perhaps I’ve infected Phil?” Nah, I got the infection a long time ago. I work in London. So in a sense you see what I see and I have the infection too! 12
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 01:56 PM | # Phil Peterson - “The point which stands though is that the “progressive” Jews had less effect on the Afrikaners than they did on the English-speaking South Africans. You agree?” Yes, I agree, but keep in mind that the Jews and Anglos were both concentrated in cities like Johannesburg, arrived around the same time as each other, worked in similar environments and thus mixed more. Afrikaners were more likely to live in rural areas closed off to some extent to much of the rest of white SA. They’d also develeped their own identity as they’d been there for a couple of centuries before the Anglos arrived in significant enough numbers to have any influence. Phil, you may well turn out to be right, but I’m still looking at alternative theories. I hope this debate continues. 13
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 02:03 PM | # > the Dutch leaving the country in droves for Australia. Yes. I read that too. Perhaps Australia will become the last redoubt of Western man? Something like Acre & Tyre were a 1000 years ago? The Australians seem to be free of our gloom? 14
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 02:07 PM | # Matra, One other interesting point, it seems to me, is that anti-apartheid fanaticism was not so strong outside of Britain in the rest of Europe (perhaps with the notable exception of Scandinavia) - at least initially. I remember reading about BBC journalists in the 1950s foaming at the mouth about Apartheid. It struck me as very strange because racial consciousness in the fifties was alive and well. I also remember reading how many English liberals in the forties (during World War II) were thoroughly appalled upon hearing that the US Army was segregated. 15
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 02:12 PM | # Well chaps, on the subject of South Africa, nothing gets more absurd than this: A deportation notice to a white South African couple while 20 million Mexicans have been living and multiplying with gay abandon. What a strange country. 16
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 03:22 PM | # MD - “I am entirely baffled by the present position of a US Republican adminstration with respect to open borders and illegal aliens” Lou Dobbs and others on US television have asked the same question. Below is a Steve Sailer article about the Bush family and its connections to Mexico. The explanation that Bush wants his half-Mexican nephew George P Bush (Governor Jeb’s son) to be president some day is as good as any other explanation for flooding the country with Mexicans. http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_thinking.htm Unfortunately for the couple in Phil’s link, Bush and the rest of the US political establishment has little use for white South Africans. Personally, I think the US should use the ongoing pressures on white Africans to bring them to the US. Both the South Africans and Zimbabwean whites have shown themselves to be very talented and industrious, especially in the field of agriculture. One of the often cited reasons for needing Mexicans is to help US agriculture. It seems to me US farmers and agribusiness are a little too dependent on Mexican labourers and need to become more innovative. White southern African farmers have shown a remarkable ability to adapt - they are in high demand in other parts of Africa - and so maybe they could be useful in improving the sorry state of the government subsidy and cheap labour addicted US agribusiness. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 20, 2005, 03:25 PM | # “I think many people in Europe who are getting sick of the blighted cities and the ethnic tensions are running away to Australia. I read a news story about the Dutch leaving the country in droves for Australia. A direct fall out of the increasingly menacing Moslem presence in Holland.” —Phil Peterson For these refugees from the current (deliberately planned-and-executed, let there be no mistake) race-replacement pogrom( * ) now underway in Europe, the thought that they themselves might be “racist” (whatever that word’s supposed to mean—in fact it means nothing, of course) is in their minds too horrible to contemplate (they having been brainwashed from kindergarten up to believe that word not only means something but means something unspeakably horrible—many Americans may not be aware, incidentally, that schoolchildren throughout Europe are taught from the tenderest age to revere Martin Luther King virtually as some kind of saint, so that by the time they leave school they may not be too sure who George Washington was, or St. Paul, or Socrates, or Aristotle, or Plato, or even Jesus Christ, but you can be certain they’re virtually on their knees at the mere mention of the name Martin Luther King, which has roughly the effect on them that the name of the Prophet Mohammed has on a Moslem), so rather than do the unthinkable, i.e., stand their ground and, instead of fleeing their beloved ancestral homeland, joining those protesting against their communities’ and nation’s race (or traditional racial mix—musn’t forget to always throw in that clarification, obvious to everyone else, for John R., lest he accuse you of believing in “pure races” or “completely racially-homogeneous traditional nation-states”) being deliberately changed into a different one, one which, if brought in in excessive numbers, is thoroughly incompatible with them, their communities, their way of life, and the continued existence of their traditional nation as such. That’s what they should do—stand and fight, rather than flee. But not everyone is a philosopher able to see through the morally-criminal brainwashing these folk have been subjected to since birth, so they take what for them is the easier way out of the dilemma, wrenching though it be to have to leave one’s native land forever. Thus proceeds one of the several ways in which actual race-replacement is accomplished by those social forces wishing to accomplish it who have somehow gotten into the driver’s seat (John R. will of course pooh-pooh the very idea of race-replacement levels of incompatible immigration as “the silliest thing he’s ever heard of”). ( * Yes, I did put “pogrom”—that wasn’t a typo for “program” or something else. What’s taking place is a carefully-behind-the-scenes-plannned-orchestrated-and-executed pogrom.) 18
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 03:36 PM | # Fred, I think it is not inconceivable that many of those people fleeing Holland have actually changed their view on race or multiculturalism. But they know that even if most of their countrymen were to agree with them, in, say another 10 years, it doesn’t alter the fact that life would be unpleasant with a real chance that it would become unsafe and bloody. The usual bourgeois response to conflict is to run. It is not unique to Americans or to the Dutch. What will change this completely, is when there is nowhere left to run. When escape is impossible, they will fight. Whether it will be too late by then is an open question. 19
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 03:57 PM | # > When escape is impossible, they will fight. This is likely. Something to consider - and this is why I am not an orthodox White Nationalist - there are many non-Whites that admire and wish to live in White society. When the hour arrives, our friends and enemies, will make themselves known. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 20, 2005, 04:02 PM | # Phil, you make excellent points (and that was an excellent log entry, by the way—as good as anything anywhere on the net). In the meantime, look at this by John Bolton in the thread on “Death Comes Nigh Our Dwelling”: “The combination of welfare institutions and mass immigration tends to select for those populations which most efficiently drive forth those who are self-respecting enough to care about their children. If such groups did not exist at the outset, this conjunction of policies would create them. If they were rare, it would scour the planet for them.” It’s a good description of one of the several ways in which race-replacement (“the silliest idea John R. has ever heard of”) actually takes place: the combination of policies mentioned by John Bolton, including open borders, selects for those populations which most efficiently drive out (or, as he says, drive forth) the original populations. As John B. adds, these policies in combination will actually “scour the planet” for replacement populations to be brought in for the purpose of race-replacement. Even taking your explanation into account, Phil, I have difficulty fathoming how it is that there hasn’t yet been an explostion of anger against George Bush and Karl Rove over open borders. I just can’t fathom how that can be. 21
Posted by John S Bolton on February 20, 2005, 04:08 PM | # Isn’t it universalizable that particular civilizations are high value and not to be mindlessly sacrificed? Likewise the survival of valuable lineages should be universal value. If this is racism, then racism is a proud appellation. When a population behaves very much against its reproductive fitness, principles of biology tell us that parasite manipulation is the most likely explanation. It is no explanation to mention a particular ethnic group in this connection. The chief depressant of fertility is additional years of education, which only state educational institutions can provide to the extent of causing attrition. More important is the almost inconceivably massive propaganda machinery needed to stampede the lemmings over the bluff. Only government schools can provide the bulk of this. The difference between the Anglo-Saxon based countries and the others may have to do with the two-party system, within the rich group of countries which are targeted for dissolution by importation of third world customs and peoples. 22
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 04:22 PM | # Fred, Thank you for your kind words. “Phil, I have difficulty fathoming how it is that there hasn’t yet been an explostion of anger against George Bush and Karl Rove over open borders. I just can’t fathom how that can be.” The truth of the matter is that the average American is materially better off than any previous generation of Americans in history. He is living in a time of great prosperity (no matter how fleeting or fragile this may be, 99 percent of human beings never look beyond the range of the moment) - there is enough to eat, life is comfortable (most Americans live in houses that would be considered a “luxury” in much of Britain, especially London!) and there is plenty to keep him entertained (500 TV channels, endless supply of “entertainment” - movies, sports, TV dramas). Why should he be outraged? You are dealing with a people whose attention spans are very small - maybe a minute or two. Could you explain what is happening to the entire west in 1 minute to anyone? To add to this, his mind gets brainwashed by TV (which contains an appropriate amount of Propaganda). He went to school as a child where the school curriculum was determined by members of the Frankfurt school - so he has adequate respect for Martin Luther King and nothing but respect and gratitude for blacks, mexicans, homosexuals, feminists etc etc etc. As long as the bread and circuses exist, there will be no resistance or not enough resistance. The political situation in Holland is instructive in that regard. The murder of van Gogh drove home the message that you cannot just drink your beer and watch TV. The problem will grab you by the collars and drag you into the streets and force you to fight. That explains all the tightening of the asylum laws and the general fear of foreigners. Americans will only fight when their property is severely threatened, when physical safety cannot any longer be guaranteed and when there are no places left to run. Barring that, they won’t have time to listen to you or me. Who wants to miss all the entertainment? 23
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 04:27 PM | # As long as the bread and circuses exist, there will be no resistance or not enough resistance. Bravo Phil! As I said in another thread: 24
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 04:34 PM | # “...Western man will be watching TV in his underwear with a big spoonful of ice cream in his mouth when the barbarian’s mechanized caravan arrives at his door.” Geoff, That would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a tragedy. 25
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 04:41 PM | # I find it interesting that those fleeing Dutch are so interested in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, but apparently not in the US. The US appears to be only their 4th choice. Perhaps despite their late realisation that “multiculturalism” isn’t working they still harbour enough leftist values to view the US with great suspicion. I know I, despite having been raised in 1970s Northern Ireland, once thought of the US as a very violent and dangerous place - much more so than Ulster - that one had to be very careful in and a country with no social safety net. It seems most Europeans also think the US has no welfare state and is a place where people are left to die in hospitals if they can’t produce money to pay. So the social democratic Dutch must see Australia and Canada as kinder gentler places more like the Netherlands they are fleeing. Given the role of their welfare states in helping create many of their immigration problems in the first place this may suggest no great awakening has occurred beyond their recent realisation that multiculturalism isn’t all that great. It would not surprise me if their behaviour in Australia ends up resembling that of liberal Californian exiles in Arizona and Idaho. They fled to other states because of the high taxes and declining quality of life, much of it caused by immigration, only to vote for Democrats or Republican ‘moderates’ in their adopted state. In other words reverting to old habits and ways of thinking once they free themselves from immediate risk. But still, at least the children are more likely to take to the culture of their adopted country/state than immigrants from non-European countries. 26
Posted by Kubilai on February 20, 2005, 04:42 PM | # Phil, Thank you for such an insightful post. Personally, I feel there will be a stand made by Whites in Europe and the EU will disintegrate in due time. I also feel the US will also be balkanized with the ever growing influx of unwanted immigrants and multi-culti push. Americans have always followed the maxim “American first” and then comes whatever ethnic background as second. The “diversity is our strength” is a new liberal mantra that many Americans have a hard time buying. They are used to people at the very least speaking English or its variation and only recently have they been exposed to the English as a second language belief. They are proud, arrogantly so and dare I say “ignorantly” so, as most Europeans can attest to. It is this pride in America that has kept it a unified nation. Unfortunately, that is no longer a sweeping belief amongst the new breed of masses. The conservative, disillusioned Whites will eventually make a stand as well and I think the only realistic result is a balkanized nation. They need a leader or leaders for this and though people are feeling the heat, it is not nearly hot enough yet for such a catastrophe to become reality. Canada is a lost cause. It has no identity, aside from the “we aren’t Americans” identity that they so love to flaunt, especially in the face of the great benefits they reap being in close proximity to the US. The Quecebers are a different breed and will remain isolated because they have no fear of playing any race card. They have been the protected minority in Canada and continue to play that advantage to its fullest potential. I believe they are slowly making plans for another sovereignty referendum. Most of Canada is still lily White aside from Ontario and especially Toronto. The other area full of immigrants is British Columbia with Vancouver being the hardest hit. The western provinces also are making clamourings about seceding from the country due to being financially raped by the federal government on a yearly basis in order to pay for the lovely “diversity”. This may be your typical “strong words and no action” that is typical of Canadians, however. My prediction is that Canada will be 3 countries in the not too distant future. The West +/- British Columbia, Quebec along with some of the Atlantic provinces, and Ontario with all the third world diversity. This is more of a possibility than in the US because it nearly came to fruition ~ 10 years ago or so. I’ve never been to Australia, however relatives have and they say it is very much like Toronto, that being full of Asian immigrants. I feel, though am open to be proven wrong, that Australians have the same weak mindset as do Canadians. The bottom line is that running will get us nowhere. There is NOWHERE to run. Changing political beliefs (which are slowly happening) and deportations are our only salvation in Europe because balkanization is surely not an alternative. North America with its vast land can still survive without deportations however the countries will be splintered. If this fails, which obviously IS a possibility, then the last remaining refuge for Whites remains with Russia? Thoughts? 27
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 04:57 PM | # Kubilai & Matra: Thanks for the Canadian perspective! There is something I’d like to ask you both, and it fits with Kubilai’s question. What part of the US will Whites flee to, to concentrate in mutual self-defense? I think the Western U.S. is lost to Mexico. The Mountain states are too remote. I’ve thought the upper midwest may be the safest. Perhaps the south too might hold out. Not sure about the North East? Florida is lost, for sure. UPDATE: Or perhaps it will be many pockets of communities, isolates or salients spread throughout the nation. I do think California, Southwest, and Florida are lost to us in toto. I’ve thought about this much… but can’t come to a conclusion. 28
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 05:02 PM | # Kubilai, Thank you for your kind words. “If this fails, which obviously IS a possibility, then the last remaining refuge for Whites remains with Russia?” I honestly don’t know to be honest. History is unpredictable - full of strange twists and turns. Who could have predicted in 1900 that this would be the state of Western man in less than a century? What would Europe look like in 2100? Thats a very difficult question to answer. What I have no doubt about is that time is running out for indulging in any more delusions. Hard reality is soon going to force its way into people’s faces, whether they like it or not. Things will get nasty in Europe starting with Holland and then possibly France where we have a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. What happens after that is anyone’s guess. My own feeling is that Liberalism is wearing thin in Europe anyway. The only thing that is keeping it together is the bourgeois fear of changing the status quo. But that fear will be replaced by other concerns if France starts hurtling towards a kind of racial/religious civil war (this might sound ridiculous today but the demograhpics are there for anyone to look at). I am hopeful about Eastern Europe but recent events make me a little less hopeful. There is a lot of western money pouring into Eastern Europe that is dedicated to same destructive causes as the money that poured into the American south in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s (I needn’t spell out the source to you. Practically all readers will understand what I am talking about). See here: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February2004/0204Trifkovic.html The stand-off in Ukraine was evidence of the same struggle. So we shall see. There is certainly an element of the US power-structure that is desperate to re-make Eastern Europe in an image of the United States (in every conceivable way). If that effort is successful, then its over basically. 29
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 05:11 PM | # >re-make Eastern Europe in an image of the United States I may be at odds with some here… but I’m astonished at the neo-con power grab in the Ukraine. This morning on “Meet The Press” Sen. John McCain was bellowing threats against Russia. Why? Well, he has jailed and exiled the oligarch thieves, like the Khodarovskies. (BTW: these oligarchs have deep ties to Washington’s neo-cons). Oh, BTW, this Ukraine thing was a neo-con & George Soros operation from the beginning! 30
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 05:17 PM | # Geoff, Yes. Post-communist Eastern Europe is all up for grabs now. If the effort is successful, very soon you will see millions of aliens streaming into these nations as well. They will turn into mirror images of Holland and France in some ways. The Neo-con desire is to make the West as heterogenous as possible. Also, if possible turn the native white populations into minority status. This has been done successfully in America where the white population will hit minority status within a couple of generations. That is certainly the plan for Eastern Europe as well. I have no doubt about this. 31
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 05:25 PM | # Phil: Just an excerpt from the Chronicles article you linked: Those foundations… Regarding “women’s health” programs in Central and Southeastern Europe, for instance, one will look in vain for breast-cancer detection or prenatal or postnatal care. Soros’ main goal is clear and frankly stated: “to improve the quality of abortion services.” I wish I could make everyone that is hung-up on this issue understand that abortion is killing OUR blood, kin, and future. Think about it! Why is Soros so interested in promoting more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: The region is experiencing a colossal demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. 32
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 05:29 PM | # Geoff, Yes. This is a project that unites Neo-cons and so-called “Liberals” like Soros. There are very strong motives at play. 33
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 05:42 PM | # Kubilai - I was attending a liberal university (is there any other kind?) in Toronto when the “near-miss” Quebec referendum took place. I seemed to be the only one who thought there would be a Yes vote. The mostly upper-middle class Canadian-born Anglos I associated with were guessing 60-40 against a Yes vote on separation. I remember the shock they were in the next day. These Anglos just couldn’t understand the idea of wanting to live amongst one’s own in a sovereign nation-state. These born and bred trendy liberals were particularly dismayed by separatist leader Jacques Parizeau’s explicit remarks - thanks to the liberating force known as alcohol - that the referendum lost because of the ethnic vote. It was as if liberal Anglophone Canada had actually believed all these years that Quebec separatism was just a reaction by francophones to feeling marginalised and that once their French rights were established and well protected from discrimination the Quebec people would settle down like flaccid English Canadians. Today we are hearing the same stuff: Separatism is dead. No it isn’t, it has been hibernating and I believe it is re-emerging. The problem for Quebeckers is the changing demographic situation. They have a very low birth rate and mass immigration means they will have to act soon. Personally I hope they do leave as it is the only way we can realistically expect to see a Conservative Party victory on a scale that will allow their grassroots to talk aloud about what many of them think about immigration without fear of alienating “moderate” voters. The one thing Canada does have going for it - and it’s not much - is the diversity of the immigrants themselves. Unlike Europe and the US where a significant proportion of the immigrants are from a relatively similar group - Muslims in Europe, Mexicans in the US - no one ethnic group or religion dominates among Canada’s immigrants. Recent ethnic disputes have occurred within the Liberal Party, especially in BC between Sikhs and Chinese. I’m not saying things are rosy but at least there is little danger of one powerful ethnic group starting to gain a stronghold over a significant section of the country. They are more likely to just dominate particular suburbs and sections of cities. BTW Anthony Browne, a renowned anti-multicultural writer is sounding an optimistic note in this week’s Spectator saying that migration to the West will slow as countries like India and China get richer. It’s an interesting article. The problem is I don’t see countries like Mexico or Egypt never mind those in sub-Saharan Africa getting richer any time soon. 34
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 05:52 PM | # Geoff Beck - “Oh, BTW, this Ukraine thing was a neo-con & George Soros operation from the beginning!” I disagree with the paleocon line on this that’s been coming out of Chronicles and other sources. Canada has a very large Ukrainian population and they’ve been pushing for the kind of change that recently happened since the 90s. And these Ukrainian exiles are not normally friends of neocons. Indeed many of them despise neocons for smearing Ukrainians as anti-Semitic retrograde fascists. John Demanjuk’s ordeal has not been forgotten by many. Yes, I realise Soros and others were involved but they were connecting themselves to a movement that already had roots in Ukraine unlike Soros’ other activities in Eastern Europe so well documented by Srdja Trifkovic. Let’s hope the Orange Revolutionaries just used Soros and company to achieve their own ends. Time will tell. 35
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 05:59 PM | # Matra: There is a legitimate dispute on this issue. Chronicles Magazinehas been very open about the disagreement, at least in Thomas Fleming’s blog. I’m willing to hear the other side on the question. In regards to the wider issue of Soros, Eastern Europe, and the neo-cons I think we have common positions, though? 36
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 06:17 PM | # “In regards to the wider issue of Soros, Eastern Europe, and the neo-cons I think we have common positions, though?” Yes, all of us who care about the West have an interest in not seeing Eastern Europe end up like the Netherlands. The pro-Eastern European remarks in the neocon press shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Just the other week Paul Gottfried produced an article at Lew Rockwell’s site about the neocon NY Post still smearing the Poles as anti-Semites. These are the same Poles endlessly praised by supporters of the Iraq war for not being decadent like the French and Germans. These Eastern Europeans will only be in favour with the neocons as long as they continue to repent for misbehaviour during WW2 and toe the US line on the US Middle East policy. They will also be expected to deport any alleged war criminals to Israel but, of course, Lithuania cannot expect Israel to respect its extradition request for the couple of alleged Soviet war criminals currently living in Israel. Incidentally, I noticed someone calling himself the Slovak Minister of the Interior has written to Chronicles in praise of the late Samuel Francis. It wouldn’t surprise me if the neocons are already looking into who this person is and whether he’s fit to be a member of a government allied to the US! http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/samfrancis.cgi/2005/02/18/Vladimir_Palko,_Min 37
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 20, 2005, 06:50 PM | # “BTW Anthony Browne, a renowned anti-multicultural writer is sounding an optimistic note in this week’s Spectator saying that migration to the West will slow as countries like India and China get richer” He is dreaming. Mexico’s per capita GDP is $8,000 and that results in the migration of half a million Mexicans to the US every year. India and China’s per capita GDP’s aren’t even a quarter of that. The fundamental thing that westerners will have to understand is that aaprt from a few islands in East Asia, the rest of the world is never going to catch up with the West in terms of standards of living. It just won’t happen. And because of that the pressure of immigrants will be perpetual. If we let our guard down and keep it down (as we have done in the last two decades), immigrants will keep pouring into the west until there isn’t much difference left between Britain and say, Mexico (in living standards). That fact needs to be hammered home. What many Conservatives often do is look at rosy scenarios and hope that problems will take care of themselves and they would not have to make difficult political choices. That is not going to happen. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on February 20, 2005, 07:24 PM | # Gentleman, thank you all for an extremely interesting debate. Beckian gloom, apparently, is good for us. At least, in the circumstances it is appropriate. Fight or flight? Not a great choice to have to make. But the man who won’t stand his ground when the ground is his own can hardly be expected to do so a second time, when the same tide washes at the shore of his new home. He is already defeated. By my reckoning, though, defeat also attends the New Hampshire option. I’m an Englishman and we can’t balkanise anyway, as Phil says. But even in North America balkanisation is no better than half a solution, an invitation to conflict to echo down the generations. It is a step backward, a retrenchment against a foe that will be in no way discouraged. Life is long. And if liberalism still obtains, whites will go right on being cast in the role of the immoral ubermensch, the oppressor. The new borders, having been negotiated only by agreement rather than conquest, will become porous. The predation will re-commence. My other objection to balkanisation is that it is motivated by, if not cowardice, then a marked absence of those qualities of Western Man that raised him up to such greatness and power. Balkanisation is thinking small. But the truly historical nature of our difficulties call for a firm purpose and for sweeping, courageous actions. At the level of the individual immigrant the permanent solution (if not, of course, the final one - we don’t want to upset anybody) is to repatriate. We have to conquer the immigrant to curtail his predation. Cries of “impossible”, questions about the fine judgements such a contingency would call for, all the apparent inhumanity and cost of it and so on do not dissuade me. The manifold difficulties of the task are not the issue. Consider the no less manifold difficulties of moving the poor of the Third World into our midst. Yet that is being accomplished only too effectively. Before repatriation can even be discussed, however, we have to acknowledge that it is not politically viable in a liberal society – and never will be. The securing of race and nation cannot be an expression of liberalism. Repatriation is a profoundly Conservative measure (by which, of course, I do not mean that it could be espoused by Conservative parties or politicians today). Liberty as the interest of the free and equal man has become our enemy and is destroying us. Half-measures will not deliver us from it. We have no choice but to eradicate the beast completely. 39
Posted by Svigor on February 20, 2005, 07:27 PM | # This is the best thread I’ve read at MR yet. Phil, Geoff, Matra, Kubilai, others: good posts. In the US, huge swaths of the country still have few immigrants. Even though the US’s problem is far worse, people do not experience it the same way as we do in Europe. Just so. Most of the English-speaking world has no historical memory of defeat, never mind foreign conquest and occupation. A couple of things that are more or less tangential spring to mind. The specter of WWII and Hitler loom large over Europe. I think both contribute mightily to Europe’s chronic and morbid fascination with socialism, and her rejection of nationalism. I think Hitler is the primary reason why Europe hasn’t needed a large concentration of Jews to keep her on the path to self-destruction (added to Jewish hegemony over the world’s greatest media power, the U.S.). Your point about recent memories of defeat and occupation is well put. The difference between the Anglo-Saxon based countries and the others may have to do with the two-party system, within the rich group of countries which are targeted for dissolution by importation of third world customs and peoples. Congratulations John, you put your finger on it. I was wondering if I would have to mention this. The parliamentary system is a HUGE advantage to Europe in this regard. Americans, despite decades of lying propaganda from the first estate, poll consistently against immigration. The trouble is essentially twofold: the media lies, and the two-party system makes forcible bottom-up change extraordinarily problematic. These, combined with the aforementioned population density point and various other secondary factors, explain the issue well. Most Americans are totally clueless about the ongoing invasion (and just about everything else of importance as well). As for the motivation for race-replacement, I don’t think one need buy into any personal Bush family connection (as primary factor): cheap labor is in corporate and elite interests, as is racial Balkanization. I know I, despite having been raised in 1970s Northern Ireland, once thought of the US as a very violent and dangerous place - much more so than Ulster - that one had to be very careful in and a country with no social safety net. That’s such a funny perception to me, since I know just enough about Europe to know that Europeans in general are more prone to violence than Americans (e.g., soccer hooligans). I think population density plays an enormous role here. BTW: these oligarchs have deep ties to Washington’s neo-cons Would you elaborate (beyond the obvious Ashkenazi Jew factor) on that? Are you referring to a “many ships, one destination” ev-psych type of tie, or something more personal? Let’s hope the Orange Revolutionaries just used Soros and company to achieve their own ends. I follow the oligarch stories loosely but consistently, and I get every indication that your hope is dashed. Boris Berezovsky is moving to Ukraine following the election results. What does that tell you? 40
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 07:38 PM | # BTW: these oligarchs have deep ties to Washington’s neo-cons American Committee for Peace in Chechnyais a prime example ( read the names ) they want Chechyna independence, which mean independence from Russia. The media is full of neo-cons like Kristol, Perle ( the same people in the committee ) excoriating Russia, Putin and arguing expulsion of the oligarchs is wrong. note, noteOne thing to keep in mind, and I would rather not say the “Jew” word. But many of the Jewish neo-cons source from Russia. They will do whatever it takes to seek vengence against Russia. They hated the Czar, Orthodox Church, and the motherland. Now, they have the chance to dismember their old foe - believe me they will do it! GW sorry for bringing this up. 41
Posted by Svigor on February 20, 2005, 07:52 PM | # Ah, so you meant simply ethinc and ideological ties, not personal or business ties? That much is obvious. Anyone who wants the skinny on the oligarchs can email me, I have a folder with about a thousand articles in it from the past year and a half or so. Then a Google news alert for “oligarch” will keep you current. The specifics can be quite muddy, but the overall trend becomes readily apparent. 42
Posted by wintermute on February 20, 2005, 08:54 PM | # BTW: these oligarchs have deep ties to Washington’s neo-cons “neo-cons”, “oligarchs” - what a rich fund of euphemisms everybody here has! Why lament Victoria’s passing when no-one will even call a table leg by its proper name? At any rate, not only are the “neo-cons” connected to the “oligarchs”, both are aided and abetted by hundreds of other organizations you’ve never heard of, in addition to the good old ACPC. Bronfmann himself (WJC) has intervened in Spain and Greece to help remove detained “oligarchs” to Israel, where they can never be extradited. The Jews . . . oops, I mean “neo-cons” around Bush pitch a fit every time Putin nabs another one. You can be sure Soros manueverings in Georgia and the Ukraine are part of an above board conspiracy (i.e. collusion facilitated by talk and not instinct) to isolate and humiliate Russia. In retaliation, Russia is providing Iran and Syria with extremely accurate, deadly, and difficult to detect missiles, as well as nuclear technology. There’s a whole ‘nother aspect to this game, though, having to do with all those records from WWII, still in possession of the Russian state. Russia has the means, and soon I predict, will have the will, to release enough KGB materials to end the “Holocaust” forever. Just five years ago, they confirmed that Hitler’s Barbarossa plan, up til now a mystery to historians, was in fact a defensive strike by the Germans, and that Stalin had every intent of taking Western Europe in toto. The Israeli academic establishment got one book out while the German version, Hoffman’s “Stalin’s War of Extermination” was still before the Censorship Board, being examined for potential improprieties. Hoffman’s book - though not much talked about - has won the day. And the Russians have more - much more. If pushed, I predict they will fight back with the last weapon left them - privileged information about the ideological formations surrouding the last World War. In my mind, of all the hair-pullingly moronic things the Jews are doing, the relentless and almost pyschotically vindictive houding of the Russians to utter ruin is simply inexplicable. They, truly, must be insane. For those interested, Hoffman’s book is available from Amazon. My version arrived emblazoned with a sticker that read “Approved by the German Censor Board”, although the German language being what it is, the organization’s name had approximately a billion more syllables than that, and the word itself filled me with an unnameable dread. www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0967985684?v=glance
If the description strikes you as too improbably pro-Nazi and revisionist in tone, you should keep in mind: all the information was provided to the Germans by the Russians, with no prompting from the German side - indeed, much the reverse. If the Russians are pushed too far, World Jewry will have created - yet again - a powerful source of regret for itself.
Why? If the Jews are intent on destroying Russia (and I agree with your analysis, Perle is already demanding their removal from G-8), and intend to subject the Russians to financial and moral degredation unimaginable to all but Poles, Hungarians, and Palestianians, why aid in this hellish contrivance by not naming the perpetrator? Does this not make you an accessory to the crime? 43
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 20, 2005, 09:09 PM | # One thing to keep in mind, and I would rather not say the “Jew” word. Because this is Phil’s thread I’d I rather not have it careen off into a exclusive expose of Jewish misdeeds. The book you posted looks interesting, though.
Stalin’s War of Extermination 44
Posted by Matra on February 20, 2005, 10:59 PM | # wintermute - “If the Jews are intent on destroying Russia” I agree that MANY Jews, including neocons have it in for the Russians. But “neocon” is better than “the Jews” because it’s not as if neocons represent all Jews. If they did the apparently neocon-brainwashed Bush would’ve won more than a quarter of the Jewish vote in the last election. (Yes, I know the Democrats were not exactly pro-Russia either) It’s true that neoconservatism is a Jewish-dominated movement despite it’s occasional Bill Bennett or other Christians, but some of its most hostile critics, on both the left and right, have also been Jews. I believe it was in a Murray Rothbard (Jewish) article that I first encountered the word “neoconservative”. He in my opinion is, despite dying in 1995, still the greatest critic of the neocons. I wouldn’t want to lump Rothbard in with Perle, Krauthammer and company. Though it is still certainly worth pointing out that the main, and intended, beneficiaries of the neocon agenda are Jews. Svigor - “I know just enough about Europe to know that Europeans in general are more prone to violence than Americans (e.g., soccer hooligans).” It’s been a while since I looked at stats on this but the last time I did US whites had slightly higher rates of convictions for violent crimes than Europeans (a very diverse group). I suspect that violence is more common in Britain and Ireland than other Western European countries due to alcohol abuse - there aren’t that many incidents at soccer matches, though those that do occur probably involve alcohol. Guessedworker - “But even in North America balkanisation is no better than half a solution, an invitation to conflict to echo down the generations. It is a step backward, a retrenchment against a foe that will be in no way discouraged.” The controversy over the Confederate battle flag in the southern US shows that retrenchment won’t assuage those who hate more than just the symbols of the West. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/the_war_on_whit.php 45
Posted by Kubilai on February 21, 2005, 12:25 AM | # Geoff: What part of the US will Whites flee to, to concentrate in mutual self-defense? I agree with you that California and Florida are lost in toto as is almost the case now. I think the midwest and praires will be White. I do not know where Blacks will eventually end up, however the deep South has more than a few to create their own piece of the proverbial pie. This is described by Edgar Steele, who is a lawyer that lives in northern Idaho. I do not agree with everything he writes and others are free to make what they will about his views on this matter. His writings on this topic and more can be found here… http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/balkan.htm
Thanks for the reply. It does seem darkest before the dawn. There is a real change taking place in the minds of many. This issue was not even on the back burners of people’s thoughts even up to 3-5 years ago. The more racially aware have been at this for some time yet they (we) were essentially preaching to the choir. Now, more and more people are becoming aware, albiet not fully, and know there is something not right with the current state of affairs. You can see and hear it all over the Western world despite the feverish attempt of suppression by the “media”. People can only be beaten down for so long and when their lives are no longer “tolerable”, forget perfect, things will change quite rapidly. This is true for Europe and North America.
These Anglos just couldn’t understand the idea of wanting to live amongst one’s own in a sovereign nation-state. These born and bred trendy liberals were particularly dismayed by separatist leader Jacques Parizeau’s explicit remarks - thanks to the liberating force known as alcohol - that the referendum lost because of the ethnic vote. I was there as well at the time and it is closer to 15 years as I recall. I was shocked that a country could vote to fall apart. I was young, foolish, naïve, and patriotically American in a Canada that nearly split apart. Knowing then what I know NOW, I would have helped Parizeau myself. That would have brought an abrupt end to Trudeau’s pet project of “multiculturalism” which deservedly needs to die a quick and painful death. Coincidentally, his view on “multiculturalism” began aroung the same time as the 1965 Immigration Act and all other immigration loosening legislation in Western countries. I’m sure this unified view to allow third world immigration in all White European derived countries is purely coincidence….riiiiight. Let’s hope Quebec will not fail us in the near future as they plan for another referendum. Though there isn’t anyone as driven as Parizeau was on this issue, though I could be wrong.
Balkanisation is thinking small. You are correct and your other concerns regarding balkanization hold true as well. The balkanization of Canada will be a vote initiated splintering. It will also restart the whole process over again as you rightfully fear. In the US, I suspect the balkanization will be bloody as has been her entire history. I only hope when it comes, the president at the time will not be someone like GW Bush because he will have no qualms of sending in his fully military arsenal to quash any uprisings. Let’s hope it will be a Kerry or Clinton type. I also agree that “repatriation” (LOL) is a must in Europe and really should occur in North America, but will not. I laugh at the term repatriation, however you are quite right in this regard. Non-threatening terminology is what lulled us to sleep and has allowed all this to take place in the first place. It isn’t third world dregs swarming like locusts in our society. It is “diversity”. LOL Thank you all for a wonderful thread and board. 46
Posted by wintermute on February 21, 2005, 06:22 AM | # If the Jews are intent on destroying Russia (and I agree with your analysis, Perle is already demanding their removal from G-8) An interesting development, in light of our earlier discussion. Perle’s voice has now met in glorious counterpoint, by Lieberman and McCain. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1306361.htm
Attention Fred Scrooby: you’ll note how gentile frontman McCain is used to denounce the “oppression” of “business executives” (and - oh yes - “independant media”), every single one as Jewish as Barabbas, who purchased almost of all Russian state industry (and - oh yes - “independant media”) for pennies on the dollar after Jeffrey Sachs’ economic “shock treatment” destroyed the Russian economy and pension system. (Incidentally, Sach’s destruction of Russia was co-ordinated by Clinton State Department personnel - anyone care to guess their ethnicity?) Putin’s valiant attempts to secure Russia for Russians, and not blood-drinking billionaires bent on the moral and financial degredation of his people, is now being met by a policy of encirclement - Georgia and Ukraine, where Russian-hostile but plutocrat-friendly governments, financed by Soros, have been installed in neighboring states, and now, via useful idiot John McCain, economic strangulation. 47
Posted by wintermute on February 21, 2005, 06:35 AM | # After the recent Soros financed elections in the Ukraine, a Jew has been appointed Communications Director in the Yushchenko government, even though the totality of the Ukrainian media was purchased during a previous slash and burn economic exercise, just as in Russia: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4479
Unfortunately, Ukraine has no one farsighted or strong enough to fight for her interests. From here on out, the Ukrainians will hear of nothing but the Holocaust, “tolerance”, and their own terrible crimes against Jews. Ceaseless propaganda regarding free trade will fill their airwaves and morning papers. Patriots will be demonized - daily - as ‘extremists’ and ‘anti-semites’. Black-White matings will be held up as the ideal. Critics of Communism will be portrayed as laughable cranks. Tales of the brave Israeli resistance and the terrible Palestianan madmen, with whom no-one could be expected to reason, will abound. Stories about the trade in White flesh to Israel will be downplayed. No-one will ever hear about the Great Famine, Kaganovich, Beria, or Yagoda, only Ukrainian ‘complicity’ with Nazi “crimes” . . . guilt being the key to assuring Gentile complicity with Jewish plans for their future. The great drumbeat of “hate, hate, hate” will begin, until every dissenting Ukrainian is silenced, and all history of their takeover and submergence by World Jewry, erased. I would assume everyone here knows the drill, as we are all subject to it every day. Is there some way in which Murdoch’s “right wing” Fox News differs from the Sulzburger’s “left wing” New York Times, regarding the items listed: free trade, ‘diversity’, and the rest? A a few hours ago I posted here about Richard Perle’s desire to kick Russia out of the G-8, and now it seems like everyone else is getting in on the act. “World Opinion” - ten thousand Jews with megaphones. 48
Posted by Kubilai on February 21, 2005, 10:49 AM | # Hi Wintermute, Any ideas on how we begin combatting this quite insidious problem? You definitely have quite the interest and seem to be quite the expert on world Jewry. They control ALL media essentially. The only thing left is the internet and that is slowly under attack. In Canada, there have been people arrested and/or prosecuted for “hate” sites. One was supposedly by a young man who had a “neo-nazi” site and the other was an arab man who was “anti-semitic”. This problem to me is much more immense than the anti-White problem that is affecting us all. When speaking to people on these sensitive issues, I find more are receptive to my anti-immigration and anti-third world speeches. I have a hard time with the anti-Jew speeches because it makes me sound like a “hate-monger”. I would say nearly everyone is oblivious to this data and cannot comprehend the magnitude of it. It sounds too preposterous and that only weakens my argument. I avoid the topic completely now and only mention it to people who are either open to the idea or need that extra little push to “understand” why things are the way they are. 49
Posted by concerned observer on February 21, 2005, 12:41 PM | # “They control ALL media essentially.” What a silly statement. Ever heard of Ted Turner? Of course it is possible to point to any non-Jewish media big boy and assert that, if he is not attacking the Jews, he must be a lackey of the Jews. But that is just stupid and results from circular reasoning. One thing missing in all this talk about “them” is a true understanding of who “they” are and the diversity of viewpoints within the domain of “them”. As someone pointed out earlier on this site, some the harshest critics of the neocons are Jews. And some of the harshest critics of Jewish liberalism are also Jews. Of course none of this matters to a dyed-in-the-wool anti-semite, for whom a Jew is just a Jew, and can only be reduced to negative, abstract principles and shoved in a shoebox of conformity. 50
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 21, 2005, 12:46 PM | # Concerned Observer: > What a silly statement Just do a google on “who owns the media jews.” Your ignorance has really blinded you, not even Jews deny this fact. Of course defenders such as yourself would deny any malicious intent behind such a monopoly. 51
Posted by Guessedworker on February 21, 2005, 01:10 PM | # C.O. I don’t think that is entirely fair. Individuals like Dick Hernnstein and Murray Rothbard are admired by all - and not simply because they criticised liberalism or Israel, respectively. They were great and fair-minded men. No, I think you are teetering close to the introduction of a straw man with your “harshest critics of the neocons”. The issue is really restricted to the political, intellectual and financial functions and methods of organised Jewry, be that organisation formal or informal. If such organisation is broadly indifferent to its gentile host, leaving him to pursue his own interests in peace even where those counter perceived Jewish interests, show me the evidence. 52
Posted by Kubilai on February 21, 2005, 01:19 PM | # ///dyed-in-the-wool anti-semite/// Can it be any clearer how the topic of “Jews” is strictly forbidden unless it is in a truly sympathetic or favorable light. Mr. “concerned observer”, you may want to know that I am the farthest thing from an “anti-semite”, whatever that means. I take it that your definition of “anti-semite” must be anyone who discusses Jews in anything but a favorable manner even if it isn’t in a negative manner and only a verifiable and well accepted manner. Now that you mentioned the poster boy of “non-Jewish controlled media”, namely Ted Turner. Can you mention anyone else? Also, what does the word “essentially” mean to you?? 53
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 21, 2005, 02:04 PM | # Concerned Observer: BTW Ted Turner no longer manages CNN. CNN is now just a subsidiary of Time Warner, Inc . The CEO of Time Warner, Inc. is Gerald M. Levin. Reportedly, Mr. Levin is Jewish. Silly, of course, is mentioning this fact. 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 21, 2005, 02:56 PM | # “Just do a google on ‘who owns the media Jews.’ “ They do disproportionately control the media, including Hollywood. Completely innocent and sincere question: How come gentiles don’t own enough of it to defend themselves? And how come they don’t seem to defend themselves with the part they do own—like Ted Turner, for example: a multibillionaire who pledged, guess what: a million dollars to Vdare.com? No. Guess again. A million to iSteve.com? Wrong. A million dollars to The League of the South (he having been raised in Dixie, this might seem logical)? Sorry ... A million bucks to Sam Francis? Nope. A million to Larry Auster? Nah. To Jim Kalb? You’re getting colder. He pledged a billion dollars (that’s billion with a B ) to (... wait for it ...) ... the U.N. To ... the United Nations. No, you read that right. Yes ... Ted Turner pledged one billion dollars to the U.N. Remember? It was announced several years ago—he arranged to donate one hundred million dollars of his personal fortune to the U.N. every year for ten consecutive years. The Jewish billionaires donate to the ACLU (the Anti-[white]-Christian-Liberties-[and-Survival-as-a-Euro-Race-and-Ethnoculture] Union), the ADL (the American Defamation League, defaming as an anti-Semite any white-Euro Christian who doesn’t want his race changed into some third-world one), the Southern-Carpetbagger Poverty-Pimp Lawless Off-Center, and the To-the-Left-of-Karl-Marx Ford Foundation. The gentile billionaires donate to ... yes, of course ... the U.N.! Why didn’t I think of that? That makes SOOOOO MUCH SENSE! Now that I think of it, if I were a multibillionaire I’d be DYING to donate MILLIONS to the U.N.! DAMN STRAIGHT I WOULD! I COULDN’T WAIT! How can I be so sure I’d do that? BECAUSE I’M A GENTILE! I’m no fool!!! Gentiles ALWAYS DO SMART THINGS LIKE THAT WITH THEIR $$$!!! It’s now come out that the reason Carl Pope, the creep who runs the Sierra Club, refuses to criticize Bush’s ethnic-cleansing of this country’s white race out of existence by means of massive population-transfers of Mexican peasantry is he was told by a Jewish billionaire that the Sierra Club would get a hundred-million-dollar contribution on the one condition that it not criticize Bush’s and Rove’s ethnic cleansing of the U.S. white-Euro Christian race and ethnoculture out of existence by means of massive incompatible population transfers. Now, one might ask oneself, “Why couldn’t some gentile billionaire come along and tell Carl Pope not to worry, he could go ahead and criticize Bush/Rove’s psychotic ethnic cleansing plan, and if the Jewish guy pulled his hundred million donation as a result, he, the gentile guy, would more than make up for it. Why didn’t some gentile billionaire do that? The answer is they all have a goyische kopf—a dumb gentile’s brain—and so they go running around donating their money to the U.N. while their own race and ethnoculture are driven out of existence. If these people can’t help themselves in the simplest ways, how will it be possible for anyone or anything to save them from extinction? The Jews weren’t put on earth to look out for the interests of the gentiles. Neither were the Buddhist Chinese or the Arab Moslems or the African Negroes put on earth to look out for the interests of the white-Euro Christians. The white-Euro gentiles are supposed to look out for their own interests and, in furtherance of that end, are supposed to produce an élite class capable of accomplishing it. When are they going to start? Someone should tell them time’s running out. 55
Posted by Svigor on February 21, 2005, 02:58 PM | # The idea that all Jews agree on everything is a perpetual philo-Semitic straw man. Kevin MacDonald has provided the most useful analogy I know to combat it: think of Jewry as a group of ships, all headed toward the same goal, but steered by different captains using different routes. They may disagree or bicker over which route is the best to take, which sailing method is best, etc., but in the end the destination is still the same. The Jewish control of the media is often mischaracterized by those who understand it best. I think of it as I think of all Jewish power, as effectively controlling because it forms a plurality in a vacuum; in a body of 100 decision-makers, thirty organized men who act collectively will consistently control the remaining seventy who act as atomized individuals. It’s the same with Jewish power in general; Jews don’t (directly) control the steel industry, or the semiconductor industry, etc. Jews have that universal destination in mind, and so have no use for the timber industry or the rubber industry. Their interest is in the ideosphere, which is why I find the universal philo-Semitic straw man of Jewish intelligence so unconvincing; if Jewish media power is just a natural reflection of Jewish intelligence, why is Hollywood ~60% Jewish*, when entire sectors are far less? * as far as I can tell, TV isn’t as Jewish as Hollywood, at least not at the top, although watching the credits of any given TV show for its producers, directors, and writers can often be like sitting in on a B’nai B’rith roll call. 56
Posted by Svigor on February 21, 2005, 03:04 PM | # Fred: I think posterity has a lot to do with it. First, it can be difficult to recognize a problem when a society’s nervous system has been hijacked; second, many non-Jew elites know what awaits them in the “court of public opinion” if they step out of line. Plus they know that ~40% of the world’s richest are the self-chosen. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 21, 2005, 03:36 PM | # “second, many non-Jew elites know what awaits them in the ‘court of public opinion’ if they step out of line.” Forgive me Svigor but this is what Harry Truman called Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s “Old Soldiers Never Die” speech: one-hundred percent bullshit. These élites, these public intellecuals, super-rich tycoons, political powerbrokers, and so forth, mold public opinion. They aren’t helpless before it. They are exactly the ones who shape it in the first place. 58
Posted by Svigor on February 21, 2005, 05:32 PM | # I don’t deny that non-Jew elites are a large part of the power structure, or that they collaborate with the Jewish elites and sell us down the river. On the other hand, it’s still true that no one dissenter is bigger than the collective itself, and more to the point, the only real collective will (however amorphous) within that structure is Jewish. 59
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 21, 2005, 07:15 PM | # My apologies for being AWOL since last night. Have been at work all day today and returned moments ago. I am happy that I have kickstarted a process, no matter how small. It has been a refreshing learning experience with many new ideas floated around, a great deal of information that we have acquired and some new useful perspectives. I had considered it fairly inevitable that the discussion would eventually turn to Jews. I intend to do a long winded post on the “Question” in the near future. It would be very useful if any of our commenters here wish to provide me with material on THAT subject. All perspectives are welcome. I intend to weigh everything and then put together a post that does justice to all points of view and follows through with a logical conclusion that we could all have a chat about. cheers, Phil 60
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 21, 2005, 07:18 PM | # Incidentally, the venerable New York Times brings our American readers with much to cheer and get mushy eyed about: Oh dear…....... 61
Posted by ben tillman on February 21, 2005, 07:42 PM | # Forgive me Svigor but this is what Harry Truman called Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s “Old Soldiers Never Die” speech: one-hundred percent bullshit. These élites, these public intellecuals, super-rich tycoons, political powerbrokers, and so forth, mold public opinion. They aren’t helpless before it. They are exactly the ones who shape it in the first place. Not at all. They *would* be able to shape public opinion if they understood the problem, which they don’t (except in the vaguest of senses), and if they united, which they can’t. 62
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 21, 2005, 07:51 PM | # I didn’t read the article. The headline and blurb were enough. Frankly if the U.S. so-called élites, Christian and Jewish alike, and the broad population can’t put a stop to this insane shit unprecedented in world history they and the whole damn country deserve to go down, which is exactly where they’re going, and the bad news for any Jewish assholes who push this stuff is “what goes around comes around,” guys, you complete schmucks—sorry, but Israel’s going down along with the United States. Yes, Jews are plenty smart—but not quite smart enough to not cut their own stupid throats in the process of getting rid of white-Euro Christian society all because, what was it again? ... oh yes, a Crusader army committed a pogrom in the Rheinland in the year 1090 as it was passing through or whatever it was, and—oh yeah, those nasty Christians subject Jewish kids to mention of the dreaded word “Jesus” every year at Christmas time. That’s intolerable, you know—because of that we must rejoice at the replacement of the white Christians with every race in the third world we can possibly import. Then the Jews will feel safer. I’d like to see the looks on the faces of the Jewish Sulzberger family once that’s finally accomplished and they realize too late that they never had it so good as living side-by-side with the white Christians in this country. So much for the fabled Jewish intelligence—Jews have about as much intelligence as the emperor had new clothes, which I guess must be the fable in question. As for the white Christians, it looks as if their genetic capital had completely played out by the year 1965 and they deserve to go—so just continue to quietly leave the world stage as you are doing, because you’re such pieces of hopelessly impotent trash you’re not worth saving even if saving you were humanly possible, which it’s not. You’re finished. This country now belongs to the Third World. It’s a nice piece of real estate—a beautiful place. It was good while it lasted. But “only the brave deserve the fair”—and you white Christians don’t deserve squat at this point. Let the brave have this fair country—and that means anyone but you. 63
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 21, 2005, 07:59 PM | # Fred, Ive posted the entire story from the NY Times site. Check it out. 64
Posted by Svigor on February 22, 2005, 01:17 PM | # Ben Tillman - you probably already know and just slipped, but in case you don’t: use html to format your posts here, not vBulletin code. 65
Posted by Kubilai on February 22, 2005, 02:29 PM | # Fred Scrooby, I completely understand where you are coming from. This is insanity. The US will either splinter of fail outright. Most empires usually collapse from within as opposed to being conquered. We are only repeating history. Next entry: Harvard Hates The White Race? Previous entry: Biased students in Britain |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Team TAG culver city commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/17/12, 12:11 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 08:42 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 05:54 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 04:52 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 04:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 04:27 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 03:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 03:41 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 02:56 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 02:10 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 01:10 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 12:24 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 11:38 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 10:33 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 10:01 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 08:20 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:33 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:27 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:08 AM. (go) (view) Randy Garver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 07:08 AM. (go) (view) anti-daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 06:57 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 06:56 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 03:17 AM. (go) (view) Tom commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/16/12, 12:47 AM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) Circassian commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 08:44 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) Robert in Arabia commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 01:45 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 01:43 PM. (go) (view) ORION commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 11:10 AM. (go) (view) Papa Luigi commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 07:54 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 05:54 AM. (go) (view) ORION commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 05:41 AM. (go) (view) Hymie in Afula commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/15/12, 05:40 AM. (go) (view) Justus of Tiberias commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/15/12, 02:33 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by MD on February 20, 2005, 11:31 AM | #
Interesting post. My impression, from my place in the United States, is that Americans consider continental Europe to be more “far gone” than the US. I take it you believe this to be wishful thinking and/or a delusion. I have no opinion, because I am not that familiar with the facts on the ground in Europe.
I am entirely baffled by the present position of a US Republican adminstration with respect to open borders and illegal aliens. I have no explanation, other than to speculate that they (the administration and conservative commentators) have internalized liberal nostrums and take them to now be conventional wisdom; if so, there is little distinction to be drawn between right and left in the US. It seems that Bush is overly eager, even desperate, to display his liberalism (as if this would do any good, in a political sense, with either Congress or the chattering classes; if one is to be thrashed, is there a need to be polite beforehand?).
I have no explanation. There are many—perhaps millions—who are extremely angry about it. But they have no effective represenation (as you point out). To represent these positions is to be demonized, marginalized, and censored.